Quality Workshop Interreg/Tacis

1
Quality Workshop Interreg/Tacis

• Contracting, Reporting, Project Changes
• Experience from SEBco, ASAP, PlanCoast
• Angela Schultz-Zehden

2
Challenges ERDF / Tacis

• One Project Rationale, but different....
• contracting authorities
• contracting procedures
• budget lines
• financial reporting
• payment procedures
• activity report formats
• Lead Partner responsibilities / financial risk
• regional / geographic perspective
• project time lines

3
Budget Lines

• INTERREG
• BL1 Project Coordination
• BL2 Personnel
• BL3 Meetings
• BL4 TravelAccom.
• BL5 Promotion
• BL6 External Expertise
• BL7 SmallScaleInvest
• BL8 Others
• No more detail required!

• Tacis
• 1a Human Resources
• 1b Per Diems
• 2 Travel
• 3 Equipment
• 4 Local Office Costs
• 5 Other Costs / Services
• 6 Other
• 7 Total Direct
• 8 Overhead (7)
• Only Headings - detailed cost lines under each
  heading!

4
Contracting

• Interreg
• Project Start immediately
• Planning / budget flexible within BLs
• Project Coordination acknowledged
• BSR regional perspective

• Tacis
• Project Start after Contract
• Detailed planning / budget required BEFORE
• Overall project coordination not acknowledged per
  se
• Only Tacis regional perspective

5
Financial Management

• INTERREG
• Cash Flow negative
• Minimal risk for Lead Partner - as payments
  retrospective
• Constant auditing
• Decentralised financial administration
• Individual Partner Budgets
• Budget Planning Flexible within BLs

• Tacis
• Positive Cash Flow
• But higher risk for Lead Partner
• Audit formally only required at end
• More financial administration
• Only one budget visible to Tacis - no partner
  division
• Avoid Addendum - good budget planning

6
Reporting

• INTERREG
• Half Year Reporting
• Activity / Finance
• According to WPs
• Includes extra Tacis Part
• One Final Report

• Tacis
• Half Year Reporting
• Activity / Progress
• According to Activities
• Includes ONLY Tacis - no INTERREG
• Also to be used for INTERREG
• Interim Reporting
• No calendar requirement
• Finance / Activity
• Final Report
• Finance / Activity

7
Practical Approaches

• General Points
• Accept the given differences - but make them
  work for you
• Try to align Tacis as much as possible to
  INTERREG - one partner contact, same reporting
  periods, same activity reporting, same WP
  milestones, Tacis partner just another project
  partner
• Try to define transnational activities with Tacis
  contribution as much as possible at outset (also
  good for INTERREG!)
• Lead Partner - connecting point between ERDF and
  Tacis parts
• One overall coordination point
• Ideally - even WP coordinators part of Tacis
• Transfer risks as much as possible to original
  points of responsibility (i.e. project partners)
• Tacis partners should not serve INTERREG
  interests gt project activities according to own
  interests

8
Tacis/ERDF ?Tacis only

• Big difference between joint Tacis / Interreg
  projects to normal big Tacis contracts
• Tacis partners should not serve INTERREG
  interests gt project activities according to own
  interests
• EU Lead Partners ?Tacis contractors / consulting
  companies
• EU Lead Partners no mission in Russia
• Tacis partners have to use their own co-finance,
  if they want external expertise
• Exchange of Experience - not only transfer of
  experience

9
Practical Contracting

• Use Time Difference
• Use months of Tacis contracting to define
  INTERREG parts in more detail - so that Tacis
  contract / budget also for transnational elements
  as detailed as possible
• IMPORTANT Try to clarify open questions / issues
  esp with budget BEFORE contracting - the easier
  later on implementation of project
• Now use remaining Tacis months to promote also
  INTERREG results
• Try to achieve at least two project years
  together
• Plan budgets accordingly (i.e. Lead Partner
  invites RU partners via INTERREG at beginning /
  uses Tacis budget in the end)
• Establish contact not only with JTS but also EU
  Delegation Moscow

10
Financial Management

• Example SEBco / ASAP
• INTERREG Tacis Lead Partner
• No Pre-Payment to any partner (also not Lead
  Partner)
• Project Trustee Account
• One Tacis Budget split into separate Project
  Partner budgets(similar to INTEREG partner
  budgets)
• Each project partner responsible for their own
  budget use
• Financial / Activity Reporting on three-months
  basis
• If Financial Invoices correct (with all
  originals, etc.) - and linkage to activities gt
  immediate transfer of money
• Payments thus much faster than in INTERREG - but
  not all risk with Lead Partner
• Interim Audit with Lead Partner (thus still
  possible to reduce partner payments afterwards)

11
Financial Management

• Other approaches possible
• Depends on partner structure
• In ASAP for example in one region Regional Lead
  Partner responsible for six RU partners
• Audit required with every invoice from RU side
  (originals can then remain in RU / EU auditor
  accepts RU audits) gt more security, but higher
  costs?
• Important
• Avoid high risks gt esp with tenders (use more
  audits than required)
• Avoid too many separate payments
• Develop clear financial reporting guidelines /
  templates (excel sheets)
• Lead Partner should have budget in Tacis as well
  (at least to cover for extra coordination costs)

12
Remaining Challenges

• Tacis contracts to reflect also transnational
  elements / activities / outputs
• Difficulties to cover for joint costs in Tacis
  budgets
• More information/security of approval of costs
  (Tacis)
• Creative solutions to deal with RU reality
  should not be necessary and not left to project
  partners
• Different procedures not so much a real barrier,
  but psychologically RU partners - always seen as
  other partners
• Double Know-How necessary Interreg / Tacis -
  administrative challenge
• Unrealistic budget details necessary at beginning
  (rolling reporting better)

13
Remaining Challenges

• BUT
• Interreg/Tacis BSR experience MUCH better than
  Interreg/Tacis CADSES experience, where external
  funds not via LeadPartner, but via national
  project partner gt
• no overall project coordination accepted
• transnational element not reflected in separate
  contracts at all
• LeadPartner responsible for something he has no
  control over
• no information beforehand about procedures
• extreme time delays